Article Tools

Ampersand Publishing, the parent company of the Santa Barbara News-Press, was ordered to pay roughly $915,000 in legal fees and arbitration costs to former News-Press editor Jerry Roberts in the wake of Roberts’ protracted contract dispute with that paper after his much publicized resignation in July 2006. Roberts quit — along with five other editors — during stormy and prolonged controversy over what they termed a breach of journalistic ethics by Ampersand owner Wendy McCaw.

Though this order was part of an arbitrated settlement that concluded in October 2009, the details were just released for the first time Friday, February 5, when attorneys for McCaw filed legal papers in Santa Barbara Superior Court to have the arbitrated ruling vacated.

From a strictly technical perspective, the ruling was a draw. The arbitrator, Deborah Rothman, rejected McCaw’s claims that Roberts had breached his contract by divulging confidential information about the management of the News-Press or that he has made defamatory remarks about McCaw and the paper. But she also rejected Roberts’ counterclaims that McCaw had effectively forced him to quit by making working conditions so impossible he had no other choice. Likewise, Rothman rejected Roberts’ contention that McCaw was legally responsible for a libelous blog authored by McCaw’s fiancé — and News-Press copublisher — Arthur Von Wiesenberger.

Paul Wellman (file)

Wendy McCaw and Arthur von Wiesenberger

Even so, the arbitrator declared Roberts the prevailing party. As such, Roberts is entitled to recoup many legal costs from McCaw that he expended defending himself. To that end, Rothman ordered McCaw to pay Roberts $629,643.63 in legal fees. Roberts had expended $750,000 in attorneys’ bills. The arbitrator also ordered McCaw to pay Roberts $167,516 in arbitration costs.

Despite rejecting arguments for both sides, Rothman provided a detailed accounting of why she determined Roberts was the prevailing party. Ampersand’s stated litigation objective, Rothman said, was “to pin the blame on Roberts’ media statements for its lost prestige and credibility in the Santa Barbara community … Further, Ampersand pursued its objectives in this proceeding in a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners, go-for-broke fashion … to punish Roberts for Ampersand’s public drubbing.” In this objective, Rothman concluded, McCaw had failed utterly to demonstrate Roberts had violated the terms of his confidentiality agreement with the News-Press or that he had defamed her in any way. She did acknowledge, however, that Roberts had spoken disparagingly of McCaw and the News-Press. “What Ampersand probably wishes Roberts had signed is a non-disparagement agreement. Ampersand cannot retroactively prevent Roberts from disparaging Mrs. McCaw or the News-Press.”

Rothman noted that it was McCaw, not Roberts, who initiated the legal dispute which, under the terms of Roberts’ contract with Ampersand, had to be resolved through mandatory arbitration. McCaw initially filed a $500,000 action against Roberts, but when he responded with a counterclaim, Rothman noted McCaw upped the ante by increasing her complaint against Roberts from $500,000 to $25 million. “I infer from the evidence before me that Mrs. McCaw is capable of great vindictiveness and appears to relish the opportunity to wield her considerable wealth and power in furtherance of what she believes to be a righteous cause,” Rothman declared in her ruling.

To that end, she noted that McCaw had spent $2.4 million employing up to eight attorneys — led by Barry Cappello — in her case against Roberts. By contrast, Rothman stated, Roberts had spent only $750,000, deploying a maximum of three attorneys at any one time. Rothman also accused McCaw’s legal team of delivering late hits and issuing unreasonable demands. In one stance, Rothman said, McCaw’s lawyers demanded compensation from Roberts seven times greater than the amount of the actual expenses incurred. In that matter — as in the entire case — Rothman declared McCaw was entitled to nothing.

Paul Wellman (file)

Jerry Roberts

Roberts’ legal team — led by attorney Andrine Smith — prevailed according to Rothman, because their stated litigation objective was to defend Roberts against every one of McCaw’s allegations, and they did so successfully. Rothman praised Roberts’ legal effort, stating, “Roberts’ successful defense against Ampersand’s legal juggernaut speaks to the skill employed by his small band of dedicated attorneys.”

INTHEBEGINNING: Rothman set the stage for the Roberts-McCaw donnybrook by providing a thumbnail sketch of the paper’s history over the past 10 years. In 2000, McCaw — described by Rothman as “complex, private, and principled” — purchased the News-Press from the New York Times. At that time, Rothman noted, McCaw made several public proclamations that as the newspaper’s new owner, she would not intrude in the news gathering or reporting process, but leave that to professionals. To the extent McCaw would inject her thoughts or feelings into the newspaper, she vowed, it would be through the paper’s editorial section. In 2002, the News-Press hired Jerry Roberts as editor in chief. Rothman described Roberts as “a conscientious and honorable journalist.” At the time, Roberts was a high-ranking editor employed by the San Francisco Chronicle. Prior to taking the Santa Barbara job, Roberts expressed his insistence that there be a total separation between the news reporting function of the paper and the editorial function of the paper.

For two years, everything went swimmingly, according to Rothman. In 2004, however, tensions between Roberts and McCaw flared. McCaw let it be known she wanted certain stories covered in the news relating to individuals with whom she was embroiled in legal disputes or involved romantically. In April 2006, Joe Cole resigned as publisher and was replaced by McCaw’s fiancé, Arthur Von Wiesenberger, a food and travel writer with no publishing experience.

In the summer of 2006, the News-Press erupted. First, McCaw penalized several writers and editors for violating a non-existing policy by publishing the address of a property that actor Rob Lowe had hoped to develop. Lowe and his neighbors were then engaged in a land use dispute over the size and scale of the proposed development.

McCaw insisted that henceforth no addresses would be published in the News-Press. In addition, she decreed that the word “blond” would be spelled with an “e” at the end, and that the names of women, when mentioned by the News-Press, would be preceded by the title Ms., Miss, or Mrs. Roberts was incensed. In his eyes, McCaw had not merely jumped the wall between editorial and news; she’d knocked it down. For her part, McCaw was incensed over the “us-them” political bias she thought they routinely displayed. In McCaw’s mind, her reporters failed to adequately represent the interests of animals and trees during controversies involving both.

Shannon Kelley (file)

Wendy McCaw

In early July, McCaw appointed editorial page editor Travis Armstrong — long a lightning rod of intense controversy both inside and outside the News-Press offices — as publisher. She also gave him control of the newsroom. For Roberts, this was the last straw. There had long existed significant antagonism between Armstrong and the newsroom. Armstrong, for example, had written editorials critical of the paper’s news coverage, incensing many reporters in the process. But Armstrong came to personify the conflict between Church and State then engulfing the News-Press. Armstrong had been arrested driving the wrong way down a one-way street; police determined he was drunk at the time. The news section reported the incident, but when reporters attempted to write about Armstrong’s sentencing, the story was spiked over the objections of Roberts and the newsroom.

On July 6, Roberts tendered his resignation and was escorted from the News-Press building by Armstrong himself. The day before, three senior editors and longtime columnist Barney Brantingham had quit over the same issues. The meltdown was on. Since then, countless employees have left the News-Press as a direct result of this conflict.

It was Roberts’ belief that he was contractually entitled to six months severance pay. McCaw objected and filed a motion against Roberts claiming he’d breached his contract by releasing confidential materials and defaming McCaw personally. According to the arbitrator’s report, McCaw was especially incensed by an account of the News-Press troubles that appeared in The Independent‘s Angry Poodle column just one day after Roberts’ resignation. McCaw was convinced that Roberts was the source for much of the information contained in that account. That information, McCaw has contended, was confidential.

[By way of full disclosure, I am the author of that Angry Poodle column. As the author, I can attest that Roberts was not the source of any of the information contained in the offending column.]

Rothman concluded Ampersand failed to demonstrate that Roberts had been the source. Later, in the course of her 68-page opinion, Rothman would opine that the evidence indicated that Roberts was not, in fact, the source. But even if the facts were otherwise, Rothman concluded, none of the allegedly leaked information — or any of remarks Roberts made on the record at the time to many news outlets covering the strife — constituted confidential information.

file photo

Jerry Roberts and former News-Press columnist Barney Brantingham

To make her case, McCaw submitted numerous statements by Roberts lamenting the breakdown of journalistic ethics at the News-Press and the ensuing maelstrom of controversy. Among her exhibits — submitted to demonstrate Roberts’ breach of confidentiality — were such remarks as, “When they forced me out of the building, some of the staffers were trying to hug me,” or, “It’s a sad chapter for the paper and it’s sad for the community. How it turns out is anybody’s guess.” Of the 30 such comments attributed to Roberts — and provided by McCaw — to demonstrate Roberts’ contractual breach of loyalty, Rothman said, “Personal opinions and experiences cannot constitute protectable confidential business information.” To make her case, Rothman said, McCaw would have to demonstrate that Roberts released “technical data, financial data, specifications, formulas, processes, sales methods, supplier lists, advertiser lists, customer lists and books and records.” Failing that, Rothman said, McCaw had no case.

McCaw’s attorneys submitted at least 52 statements made during the heat of the crisis by Roberts to various news agencies that they contended were defamatory to McCaw. Most of these were remarks critical of McCaw’s increased involvement in decisions affecting the newsroom. Some of them were simple descriptions of having been escorted out of the building. Rothman concluded that many of the offending remarks cited by McCaw were factually accurate, and hence not subject to findings of defamation. Those that weren’t, Rothman noted, were expressions of opinion, and that under law, opinions are neither true nor false.

Describing McCaw as “a brilliant woman” but “a flawed witness,” Rothman concluded, “Her responses could be evidence of a profound lack of self-awareness, or a propensity to shade the truth for the purpose of garnering a large arbitration award.” Rothman stated some of McCaw’s remarks defied credibility. For example, Rothman cited McCaw’s exclamation, “Never,” when asked by Roberts’ attorney whether she had used the News-Press to punish personal or political enemies. Rothman stated that the unsigned front page news article the News-Press published indicating child pornography had been found on Roberts’ computer constituted evidence to the contrary. (For the record, police investigators said numerous News-Press employees other than Roberts had access to that computer; likewise, they said, other employees had that computer before. And finally, they suggested the computer disk in question may have been purchased secondhand by the News-Press, meaning that the images were present prior to the News-Press’s ownership. Roberts vehemently denied downloading the images.)

Rothman was struck by McCaw’s absolute certainty that Roberts was completely responsible for the serious loss of face the News-Press suffered as a result of the News-Press meltdown, and that McCaw herself has no responsibility for the paper’s woes. “How does one separate the self-inflicted damage to Ampersand, e.g. Mrs. McCaw’s arguably unpopular editorial stances … and running a front page article implying that he [Roberts] had downloaded child pornography onto his office computer, from any damage allegedly caused by Roberts … ?” she asked. “The evidence presented in this proceeding persuades me that such a determination would be near impossible.”

Rothman concluded that Roberts — in speaking out against the News-Press — acted in defense of “deeply held principles,” rather than any hope for financial gain. “The citizens of Santa Barbara had a right to know, even at the expense of Ampersand’s profits, that at least in Roberts’ eyes, journalistic standards that affected the quality of the paper were not being maintained.”

MCCAWVS. ROBERTS: If Rothman cast a skeptical eye on McCaw’s claims against Roberts, she was almost as dubious about Roberts’ against his former employer. In his counterclaim against Ampersand, Roberts contended McCaw had to have known he could not work with Travis Armstrong as publisher and that Armstrong’s appointment was tantamount to termination. Rothman conceded that if McCaw didn’t know this, she certainly should have given the bad blood between the two. But, Rothman concluded, Roberts never proved that Armstrong was appointed with the intention of making Roberts quit. And even if he had, Rothman added, it wouldn’t have made a difference. That’s because, she ruled, McCaw had plenty of grounds to terminate Roberts if she so chose.

McCaw, Rothman noted, was unhappy with Roberts for a host of reasons that could have led to his firing. Circulation was down on Roberts’ watch. Reporter bias remained an ongoing and unresolved problem, according to McCaw. And Roberts was not going along with a broader management program, hatched by McCaw and Von Wiesenberger. For example, he failed to provide a profile of Alyce Faye Eichelberger Cleese to Ampersand’s radio station, 1290 AM, as he’d been asked to. Likewise, Rothman stated, “Roberts failed to give sufficient coverage of new store openings, and of hotel ownership changing hands.” He spent $5,000 to have an out-of-town attorney lecture his newsroom on journalistic ethics, when the same information could have been provided for no cost. He insisted on loading up the column “The Dish” with insider politics as opposed to small town gossip, as McCaw and Von Wiesenberger had asked. “Any of the above examples of publisher dissatisfaction with Roberts’ performance, together with the disappointing circulation numbers achieved under his direction, even if not his fault, would have constituted legitimate cause for his termination,” Rothman wrote.

Ultimately, Rothman said, Roberts failed to recognize McCaw’s right — “as publisher of a relatively small town newspaper” — to control “the look, feel, and yes, slant of the paper.” Roberts failed to recognize he’d moved out of the big city media market, said Rothman, and moved into a smaller town environment where the rigorous divide between “church and state” may not be appropriate or enforceable given resource constraints and small town social realities.

Paul Wellman (file)

Arthur von Wiesenberger, Wendy McCaw, and Barry Cappello in 2007

Roberts also charged that he’d been personally defamed by a blog written by publisher Arthur Von Wiesenberger, allegorically comparing Roberts to the owner of a fictional hamburger stand who gives away free burgers, buys ethics awards, accepts bribes, makes false statements, and adds pork to his burgers in lieu of beef. Although Roberts was not named in the blog, Von Wiesenberger acknowledged that’s who he had in mind, and Rothman agreed anyone reading it would know he was the focus. Likewise, she agreed that the inaccurate allegations on the blog were libelous. But, Rothman dismissed Roberts’ defamation claim. Although she acknowledged there was a powerful circumstantial case to suggest Von Wiesenberger wrote the blog on McCaw’s behalf — Von Wiesenberger testified he cleared almost everything he did or wrote with her first — Rothman said Roberts failed to present clear and convincing that Von Wiesenberger was acting as an officer of the Ampersand corporation when he penned the blog. McCaw testified that she did not know of it in advance. Rothman noted that the blog on which Von Wiesenberger wrote the offending article preceded his employment with the News-Press, and even of McCaw’s ownership of it.

The arbitration dispute did not directly address, however, whether Roberts had been libeled by the News-Press reports that his work computer contained child pornography. That article engendered widespread community revulsion with the News-Press, even among individuals who were indifferent to the newsroom struggles to that point. Because the article in question did not appear in print until well after Roberts left the News-Press, it would not have been subject to arbitration. Though Roberts held a press conference angrily denouncing the article, he never filed a separate libel action. The News-Press never ran a retraction of the article, but it did publish a clarification. Roberts concluded that his chances of successful litigation were too iffy to proceed.

McCaw’s attorneys, Barry Cappello and Dugan Kelly, vowed to challenge the arbitrator’s ruling in court. “The News Press intends to take every step to reverse this miscarriage of justice and we have begun the process of petitioning the courts to vacate the award. It is a sad example of some of the abuses that can take place when parties are outside the actual court system,” said Cappello in an email. “Even more strangely she then ruled that even though Jerry Roberts lost his multi-million dollar claim against the New Press he, but not the News Press, was entitled to attorney fees. For Roberts to now chortle that it wasn’t about the “money” one must ask then why did he sue for millions of dollars in damages? Roberts lost and receives nothing.”

In past motions, Kelly and Cappelo challenged the arbitration process, claiming the arbitrator exceeded the proscribed deadlines in filing her report. Attorneys for Roberts concede the arbitration report was a long time coming, but stressed that Rothman deployed legal means to extended the time for deliberation, in part to allow additional briefings by both parties. Past efforts to invalidate the results by McCaw’s attorneys — using similar objections — have not succeeded, said Roberts’ attorney Andrine Smith. She expressed confidence they would not prevail again.

The matter is set for argument before Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge James Brown on March 24. Whatever he rules, it’s all but certain that his decision will be appealed.

The News-Press lost my subscription when the defamatory article linking Roberts to child porn was published. It was such an obvious hit piece, such a low blow. Despicable. At that time I was already a bit ashamed to be a continued subscriber, as even before all this litigation I had a low opinion of Ms. McCaw (I thought she had more than a few screws loose) and what she'd done with a newspaper that was stellar under Roberts stewardship. I hope Ms. McCaw at some point becomes enlightened and can grasp why some hold her in such low esteem. I won't hold my breath waiting for that day.

With the closing of yet another chapter of the sordid saga of McCaw's ownership of the News-Press, one can only hope that persistent rumors that the paper is being shopped around prove to be true. Many of the skilled professionals previously employed both in the newsroom and administration stand ready to roll up their sleeves and bring credibility and professionalism back to de la Guerra Plaza.

I remember when she took over the News Press back in the mid 1990s. I thought of her as a great savior of the paper because it was going through some tough times in those days. I remember her saying that she was going to leave the news the news professionals. Then the story came out that she wanted her own private beach. At Hope Ranch? Anyway, I thought she was being unreasonable. Then a year or two later--I forget when--came all these stories about how her employees were upset over pay disputes and other grievances. That's when I decided that she had really lost it. And its just gotten worse since then.

I moved to SB in the early 1970's, rents were low and people were friendly. What a pile of crap this town is now. I moved away a few years ago, but still like to read the Independent. Now I live in a crime free town. There are no rich and famous. Open Space is taken for granted here. Food and rent are cheap. People are honest. The way Santa Barbara used to be. Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, I love how it sounds, and I HATE what it has become.

' ... Rothman concluded, “Her responses could be evidence of a profound lack of self-awareness, or a propensity to shade the truth for the purpose of garnering a large arbitration award.” Rothman stated some of McCaw’s remarks defied credibility ...'

One wonders what Wendy McCaw's reward will be in the afterlife? Perhaps a position at the Satanic Times?

"I remember when she took over the News Press back in the mid 1990s. I thought of her as a great savior of the paper because it was going through some tough times in those days."

Actually, it was about 2000 that she took it over--but I won't hold your error against you because it SEEMS like she's been there forever.

As for her seeming as though she was going to save the paper, I worked there when she took over and the very day she assumed power she fired Allen Parsons. Even though I was just a security guard and barely knew Parsons I remember I felt like I'd been slapped in the face by this and as people who were in the building that night can attest the morale in that place that night was like that of people at a funeral. Nobody ever had a bad thing to say about Parsons.

Fast forward about two months and she fired nine more people and after that what little morale was left in that place was pretty much gone.

To this day I have yet to figure out how all this disruption of lives has been an improvement.

Whoops, Bill Clausen, I think you're right! How time flies. I've been living in Reno, NV since '01 so I've been kinda out of the loop. My folks still subscribe to the NP. My dad sure complains about it though. Did not know about the changes at the Santa Ynez paper.

What first signaled to me that the newspaper might be in for a rough ride under the new ownership was when Wendy McCaw immediately made the News-Press' Web site subscription-only without making any improvements to it. Journalists for years had been pressing management to upgrade the paper's online presence -- they knew the power of the Internet. Mrs. McCaw didn't seem to care.

Yes, excellent article; McCaw's antics defy credibility. It's amazing how filtered and out of touch a person can become when $$$$billions and an army of yes men and sycophants separate and shield that person from the world of reality.

>>"Dude, you keep trying to say your account(s) were banned, and we have explained more than once that they weren't. You insist on perpetrating this silly lie, and I won't allow it. Please stop this trollish behavior."<<

“I infer from the evidence before me that Mrs. McCaw is capable of great vindictiveness and appears to relish the opportunity to wield her considerable wealth and power in furtherance of what she believes to be a righteous cause,” Rothman declared in her ruling.

Wendy McCaw is a good example of "self will run riot".Running by her own will she has sunk The Newspress which for so long has meant so much to so many people.She also has also made life miserable for the many people that have worked loyaly for The Newspress.Way to go Wendy. Talk about the welfare of the group. You have no idea what you have done.

At any point is there a Judge or ruling party capable of holding this woman and her lawyers acountable (literally) for their actions? She is obviously abusing the system to make him and others back down, but what ruling party will say, "Lady, enough is enough. You owe, and perhaps you should be ruled against or charged with a crime for clogging up the courts, an basically trying to nuke your opponent with money instead of what is actually justice?" Or wait, is there no justice?

To billclausen,, I used to be a wrangler at the Ranchero Visitadores ride. It is the same up there, the oldtimers die out, and the new money stinks up the place. The stories I could tell about the Janeway!!! I was always listed as a guest,,, but I took care of the stock. I still get invited,,,,but I turn it down. Rich jerks are not my cup of tea! I've ridden every ranch in the Valley. "Look what I have" is the motto up there,,, The hospitality of Old California is gone forever,,,and no amount of $$$$$$ will ever bring that back.

Clausen is right about Allen Parsons. I knew Allen during his time here as publisher and he was very popular in our circle . His firng was McCaw's first step in her march to purge the SBNP of all decency . I wish that I still had my subscription so that I could cancel it again .

What I found revealing was the section about von Wiesenberger's e-mail to Roberts regarding Sothebys real-estate agents staging an advertising "brown out" in retaliation for a news article published under Roberts citing the poor housing market.

It substantiates my hunch that the local real estate apparatus has long wanted to limit market information in order to maximize their own profit. And they had willing partners in McCaw and von Wiesenberger.

Ironically, the arbitrator ruled that a publisher "has the right to control the look, feel and yes, slant of the paper." If that's true, then the standard for news drops to the level of a used-car salesman who doesn't need to tell you the car you want to buy was submerged underwater by hurricane Katrina.

She raised the stakes by millions? Shouldn't she be sued under the strong Californian anti-SLAPP laws? There should be a limit to how much legal abuse you can dish out - just because she married a rich guy and became rich doesn't mean she can smother people in legal fees.

Well, Well, Well! Finally, it appears that Queen Wendy is getting her come-uppance via the $900K arbuitration award to Jerry Roberts. Though she is in the habit of appealing nearly every court decision or court order in the past in this "controlled news" matter, her appeal to this fine city is rapidly wearing out.

What is it about the following statements she doesn't understand? "We don't believe you any longer and your credibility in this town is toast." "We don't want you deciding what news we get to read and how it is slanted." "We don't like what you did in trying to go after local retailers who pulled their ads from the N-P." " We don't like the fact that you are clogging up our court system at taxpayer's expense with all of your frivolous and vindictive viciousness." "We're tired of story after story in the N-P about birds, fish, horses, cows, turtles, penguins, Siberian tigers, yellow-throated warblers, and toads."

Oh yes, while speaking of toads, "Though we are quite a liberal and empathetic community, we don't like the fact that your libidinous male concubine has not figured out that most of the citizenry has got his number as a has-been food-gulping and wine- guzzling opinionater posing as a (self-proclaimed) connaisseur and radio talk show-off (only on your radio station), who has attached his frozen-smile corpulent self to your bulging purse."

Wendy needs to start reading the hand-writing on the wall.......her onerous ownership of the N-P has been a sordid chapter in our beloved city, and her carpet-bagging litigation war against one of journalism's finest and most-respected managing editors, is despicable.

She needs to pack her bags, sell the newspaper, and sail off into the sunset on her 150 foot yacht. Maybe she can try living in Monaco.... I read recently that there is another Santa Barbarian who likes filing frivolous lawsuits against the people and ruler of that principality who can tell her all about how the court system works there.

@ThePetard:"Oh yes, while speaking of toads, "Though we are quite a liberal and empathetic community, we don't like the fact that your libidinous male concubine has not figured out that most of the citizenry has got his number as a has-been food-gulping and wine- guzzling opinionater posing as a (self-proclaimed) connaisseur and radio talk show-off (only on your radio station), who has attached his frozen-smile corpulent self to your bulging purse."LMFAO! HAHAHAHAHAWell said, mate!

@BillClausen. You do enjoy this end of the spectrum don't you? I just had to see what was going on with this blog. Same personalities, same comments. Only the titles change. Well, I'm back to the real world. Hope all is well. Daniel Petry

Wendy McCaw will, undoubtedly, be remembered as one of the most despicable and despised persons in the history of our beautiful city. It does not matter if her name is splashed all over Santa Barbara (such as the terrace at the SB Bowl) Her extreme lack of ethics, integrity, and - apparently - a conscience, will ultimately leave her with an infamous legacy. Money cannot buy respect and she is a prime example that everyone has insecurities of some form or fashion. Her soul must be a miserable mess.